Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
November 9, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Disney's A Christmas Carol, the latest motion capture animated release from Robert Zemeckis, opened to $30.5 million. Is this a good enough result for a Jim Carrey comedy?
Brett Beach: It's an okay opening for a Jim Carrey comedy at this point in time, perhaps comparable in its perceived "soft" opening to Yes Man last year, which wound up with over five times its $19 debut. I saw it observed elsewhere that this decade began with the Yankees winning The World Series followed by a Jim Carrey family film opening at number one (How the Grinch Stole Christmas) and that is how it is closing out. Some things may stay the same, but the difference between The Grinch's $55 million opening and A Christmas Carol's just above $30 million weekend take shows both that Jim Carrey isn't the draw he once was and that this particular tale may suffer from the feeling everyone has that they know it inside and out and all the 21st century bells and whistles can only make it seem so fresh. I thought John Hamann's Sunday column did an excellent job of looking at the phenomenon of holiday films that open in early November and are able to keep their weekly drops small until after the holidays have passed. A Christmas Carol would seem to be a likely candidate for this as well, but the next few weeks will be needed to offer a clearer indication. Mumblings I hear of concern about its being too intense for small kids could result in some lost business.
Josh Spiegel: First of all, let's clarify something: considering that this is a mostly faithful version of Charles Dickens' classic novella, I wouldn't call this a comedy, even though Jim Carrey's the lead and he's pulling Eddie Murphy duty by playing so many characters. Second of all, the initial weekend gross seems a bit disappointing, mostly due to the fact that Disney's A Christmas Carol is widely available on 3-D screens, and it's a Disney animated movie starring a still-popular actor. However, movies released at this time of year, especially family movies, have good legs. Moreover, Disney's A Christmas Carol has 3-D screens all to itself until mid-December, with Avatar. I would be surprised if the movie didn't top out somewhere near $150 million, even if the opening weekend wasn't as huge as it could've been.
Michael Lynderey: Compared to some of Carrey's more recent movies (Yes Man, Fun With Dick and Jane, and especially The Number 23), this is going to do just fine. But the real gold standard that A Christmas Carol has to live up to is that trifecta of 2000s Christmas blockbusters - the ones that opened in early November and followed through with incredible legs: The Santa Clause 2, Elf, and The Polar Express. This one cost near $200 million, and while it's clearly not going to make that much, I think if it ends up at $150 million or so it'll be a respectable enough performer. But it's going to be an uphill climb. There's oodles of competition in the next two months, and growing some legs isn't as easy as it used to be - especially for a movie with such a surprisingly mixed critical reception.
Tim Briody: I'm hesitant to call it a Jim Carrey movie as well, considering it's got the creepily animated thing going on here. But it's a really good start for something that is clearly in it for the long haul. $150 million seems like the bottom here.
Reagen Sulewski: Yeah, it's important to note that with the Thanksgiving and Christmas periods ahead of it, this film will be more than fine. It's the perfect kind of film to do a slow burn and then pick up again on the two big weekends late in the year. However, I have to think they were hoping for more off the bat considering the push they were making on the Carrey and the 3-D tech. I think in large part, people are just putting off seeing this film until the Holidays.
George Rose: My gut instinct is to say this is very bad, but the sort of legs that come with winter films really does change the name of the opening weekend box office game. $30 million is just a tad more than both The Polar Express and Beowulf made on their opening weekends (both 3-D motion capture movies), but one went on to earn over $170 million and the other tapped out at just over $80 million. Coming close to The Polar Express' $170 million will make it a decent hit while only making Beowulf's $80 million could contribute to killing the medium. And let's not forget How the Grinch Stole Christmas, another Carrey character piece based on holiday literature that opened to $50 million and went on to over $250 million, with ticket prices from almost 10 years ago. Any way you slice this it's a failure against expectations and will need stellar legs to rebound.
Kim Hollis: I maintain that we actually have to be in "wait and see" mode on this one. While the debut weekend total might be a little less than what would have been hoped, it's going to roll along through the rest of this month and December as one of the primary family films of choice and the movie that "everyone can agree on" when choosing movies to see as groups. This will be a solid performer by the time it's all said and done.
Jason Lee: The fact that the film has 3-D theatres all to itself through the release of Avatar is certainly going to be fortuitous, but it'll be interesting to see how the "too dark for kids" sentiment impacts the film's legs.
Pete Kilmer: I don't think you can classify it as a "JIM CARREY" movie. However you can, and they did, certainly use him to good effect in the marketing for this. Jason has a great point in that this movie has all the 3-D theaters to itself. The other thing to consider is that like Polar Express, this will play for years at various theaters around Christmas. The $30 million opening is solid but unspectacular...certainly not Pixar-like.
Sean Collier: Jason brings up a good point - the film is fairly dark, and I thought that it might be too spooky for younger kids more than once. If the buzz is good and parents aren't put off, I wouldn't be worried about the somewhat soft opening. I'd be sweating about word-of-mouth, though; if this thing falls out of the collective consciousness by Thanksgiving, they're sunk.
It's somewhere between creepy and super creepy, is the consensus
Kim Hollis: In comparison to other CGI animation and Real D technology, what do you think of Zemeckis's motion capture style of filmmaking? Rank the three in terms of immersive experience.
George Rose: Motion capture ranks pretty low. Zemeckis keeps using the technology to capture the motion of realistic objects: people. People only look like people when they are filmed with regular cameras. The technology was so effective with Gollum in Lord of the Rings because he is a creature, not a human. He was always going to look fake, but the technology made him more lifelike by giving him man-made movement. It does the opposite when applied to actual humans. It makes them look like creepy and stiff. If you're making an animated human, you almost have to try making them NOT look human in order for the audience to connect, like Carl from Pixar's Up. He's short and boxy, but he's charming because his appearance isn't trying too hard to look realistic. The technology may work for the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future, but for Scrooge himself and the citizens around him, it just makes me feel like I'm the middle of the Disney theme park ride It's A Small World. And that's not a good thing.
Michael Lynderey: Being that the Polar Express is my favorite animated movie - ever - I'd have to rank Zemeckis' style as the best. Or at least the style that's been put into the most interesting use - and it hasn't been used very often. As for CGI, it is what it is, and the experience there depends on the quality of the movie or the animation. Real D would have to rank last, because I've never much felt myself "immersed" in anything 3D. I've only been annoyed, occasionally, or sometimes I forget it's in 3D and just watch the movie. Can I put traditional animation somewhere within this ranking? I miss it.
Josh Spiegel: This may be something closer to personal taste, but right now, Zemeckis' version of animation is the lowest on the totem pole. My biggest issue with Disney's A Christmas Carol is something that others complained about with regards to Polar Express and Beowulf: the dead, dead eyes of the characters. Some are more distracting than others, but I can't get too immersed in an experience that promotes realism but seems more like it's starring zombies. Right now, a Pixar movie with 3-d technology is the most immersive experience there is, to my mind.
Kim Hollis: I agree that Zemeckis's animation feels off, and I do think it's largely because the eyes aren't as expressive as they ought to be. I still find it easiest by far to become immersed in Pixar films, regardless of whether they are 3-D or not. If we're talking about movies that have used the 3-D technology most effectively, Coraline leads the pack, followed by Meet the Robinsons.
Jason Lee: This question recalls for me a statement made by Roger Ebert in his review of Princess Mononoke: "I go to the movies for many reasons...I want to see wondrous sights not available in the real world, in stories where myth and dreams are set free to play. Animation opens that possibility, because it is freed from gravity and the chains of the possible. Realistic films show the physical world; animation shows its essence. Animated films are not copies of 'real movies,' are not shadows of reality, but create a new existence in their own right."
I 100% agree with Ebert on this and feel the same way as Kim does. I don't need realism in my animation . . . I want boundless, imaginative worlds where the style of animation itself helps tell the story. For this reason, I enjoy a film like The Triplets of Belleville much more than anything Zemeckis has done.
Pete Kilmer: But the Triplets of Belleville had a...let's call it "warmth" to its style that Zemickis so far has lacked. This newest film by him is miles better than Polar Express, but Kim nailed it. With the dead eyes it's tough to get invested in the film.
Sean Collier: The gimmicks and technology are secondary to the story, I feel; it can look great but be deadwood, or it can look dreadful but have me complete immersed on its other strengths. I don't believe I've ever seen a film as immersive as Spirited Away, and I doubt I will. I should say that I personally enjoyed A Christmas Carol quite a bit, and found the use of 3D to be very strong; as far as the motion capture technology goes, I don't see the advantages over computer animation.
David Mumpower: I fall somewhere in the middle on this. Like Michael, I very much enjoyed The Polar Express and it was in fact one of my first Blu-Ray purchases. Conversely, Beowulf is one of the creepiest, most surreal movie-viewing experiences of my life. It felt like a waking nightmare of animation. Zemeckis chose a fantasy style for it that I found quite unnerving. In short, I find this technology entirely reliant upon the decisions the director and animation team make about the world they create. It can work brilliantly or it can make Ray Winstone look like Patrick Swayze's evil twin brother.
Just for fun, I tried to do some cloud busting yesterday
Kim Hollis: The Men Who Stare At Goats, the Overture Films release starring George Clooney and Ewan McGregor, opened to $12.7 million. Is this a good enough result for a film with so much star power?
Josh Spiegel: Considering the quirkiness of the topic, and the fact that George Clooney may be well-known but isn't a guarantee at the box office, this result is fairly impressive. I actually would have pegged this opening weekend somewhere around $10 million, if not lower. In general, I'm not sure how strong this film's legs are going to be, but for a movie about...men staring at goats to do this well is pretty good news for Overture.
Tim Briody: Outside of the Ocean's films, Clooney rarely picks highly commercial projects and The Men Who Stare At Goats qualifies in that category from the title alone. This is definitely a decent enough opening.
George Rose: These men aren't stars anymore. They are critically acclaimed actors with highly recognizable faces, but that's about it. When's the last time any of these actors opened a film on their own? Clooney's Leatherheads opened to only $12 million. Heck, the even more ensemble Burn After Reading had Brad Pitt and opened to under $20 million. McGregor, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey are hardly bankable names either. They might have been better off with a limited release and slow rollout, to build buzz and to soften the blow of such small numbers. As it stands, it just feels like a failure, which is sad because so many of my friends have shown interest in it and the trailers looked funny. Then again, was this ever positioned to be a huge hit? It feels like a cross between a cult comedy and a quirky Coens attempt at an Oscar. Maybe the confusion it has caused was too much for the audience to handle. Either way, it fell short of even the lowest expectations.
Reagen Sulewski: Is there a popular actor out there who more consistently avoids going for the big movie than Clooney? I can't think of anyone who's embraced the "quality, not quantity" mantle like he has. So while his films are almost never huge, they're big enough to keep him in starlets.
Kim Hollis: This will be a good enough performer for Overture Films. Clooney does the movies he wants to do rather than the movies he has to do. As a result, they're not going to earn the big bucks, but they're almost always going to be well remembered, at least by a certain segment of audience.
Jason Lee: Considering the bizarre (but somehow, somewhat true) story, the strange title and the schizophrenic marketing, I think Overture should be overjoyed to get this goat over double digits.
Sean Collier: If this had opened to $5 million, I wouldn't have been surprised. It already looks like it may be an afterthought come awards season, so opening to some money is about as good as it gets here.
Michael Lynderey: It's a perfectly acceptable number to me. Realistically, Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey are supporting actors these days, not box office draws. Ewan McGregor's track record is hit and miss. George Clooney is the only outright star here, and the opening weekend Men / Goats delivered is frankly typically Clooney-esque (think Syriana or Michael Clayton). If the legs are good enough for this to finish between $40 and $50 million, and I suspect they will be, then it's a winner, at least for what it is. Wanting more out of such an odd little title is unrealistic.
David Mumpower: Reinforcing Michael's point, Syriana opened to $11.7 million. Good Night and Good Luck was in theaters almost 40 days before it reached $12.7 million. North American audiences are attuned to Clooney's eclectic movie choices. He is given free reign to pick the ones he wants and there is an implicit understanding that they'll only support him so far when he's not robbing Al Pacino and Andy Garcia.On a sidenote, reviews of this film have been mixed, but I would argue that if you like dry humor (and as a BOP reader, you probably do), this is a hysterical film.